cryptopanic-mcp-server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions API rate limits (maximum 10 pages) and error conditions (API key not set, request failure), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, response format beyond a string, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and uses bullet points for parameter details. It is appropriately sized, but the 'Raises' section could be more concise, and some sentences are slightly verbose (e.g., explaining API limits). Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a fair job: it covers parameters thoroughly and mentions errors. However, it lacks information on authentication (e.g., how to set the API key), response structure details, or example usage, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'kind' with valid options ('news' or 'media') and defaults, and 'num_pages' with range constraints (1-10), defaults, and rationale (avoid API rate limits). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch the latest cryptocurrency news from CryptoPanic.' It specifies the action (fetch), resource (cryptocurrency news), and source (CryptoPanic). However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions default values and API constraints but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or contextual recommendations. Without sibling tools, this is less critical, but the absence of any usage context limits its helpfulness.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.